Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

treqie writes "During the trial of pirate bay yesterday, a professor (Roger Wallis) took the witness stand. He told the court things that the prosecutors did not want to hear. The prosecutors then tried to discredit both him and his team's work in the area, as well as his title, it was a real spectacle. In the end, the judge asked if he wanted compensation for being there — he replied that he did not want anything, but they could send flowers to his wife. Many listening online heard, and began sending her flowers, from all over the world. As of this submission, the sum is over 40,000 SEK worth of flowers. There's even a Facebook group for it."

It should be noted that the krona is worth about $0.11, so it ends up being like $4,446. For those of us who purchased long stems for our loved ones last Valentines that comes up to about 3 roses and a plush teddy bear or a handful of Gerber daises and a cardboard and macaroni "I luv U" card.

A serious point in a not so serious thread. Monsanto is the company that sues farmers for 'seed patent' violation. I'd much rather deal with the *IAA, stand up to em at all and they drop the case. Monsanto will sue you to oblivion.

Pretty much their entire business is built on selling chemicals. A lot of them have been turned into "food simulation" products. You know, shit that seems something like food, but is not food. That or "food which isn't normal food because we fucked with it". Examples include:

The music industry should start selling flowers - you can't download those for free! Of course, they'll have to make sure the flowers can't produce any seeds.

And taking pictures of flowers would be illegal, and people who make perfume smelling like flowers would have to pay royalties. They would lobby the Dutch government for the illegal tulip growing, and artificially keep the prices of roses extremely high. 1% of the actual revenue of the flower-sale would go the person who grew and nurtured the plant, 2% to the company that shipped it, 3% to the guy who actually sold the flower, and 94% would go to the middle man. After a couple of decennia all the flowers will smell the same, so that you can no longer bear the stink. The flower-tax collection agency will however every year demand that you pay them for the 2 square feet of grass in front of your house, because you might grow flowers in that.

I think I stretched that analogy a bit too far, but I think I'm going in the flower industry. brb business plan

One of my papers for my MBA was the study of piracy. My study recommended that there is ZERO link between lost revenue and torrent downloads BECAUSE they are from people they would never have done business in the first place. If someone downloads it for free, it's not lost revenue because they were never a customer to begin with. Yet these companies try to stop the 'thieves' who are not even going to become their customer.

My paper also showed that the issue was pirates selling full-priced products as the real-deal, not lost sales from never-would-be-a-customer. Even a bigger issue - these free downloads ALMOST 100% garner interest in these products - so that when they had money, or felt they wished to support a product, the former free-bee turned them into a paying customer to get a new version.

With that kind of data out there, these industry giants are forgetting the #1 tactic of product placement - give it away free, later a client they will be. That's Biz-101. It's obvious these giants are out of touch with reality.

I really, really doubt that there is zero loss to piracy. It goes against all I know of human nature to suggest that there are no people out there who look for ways to get something for free before they look to pay for it. Besides, there are a lot of people who simply don't believe that authors and artists deserve more than a flat fee for their work. David Pogue certainly heard from a lot of them when he complained about people pirating his work.

That said, it is credible that unauthorized copying can lead to a net gain by IP owners, with extra sales from viral spread of a work offsetting piracy losses. Certainly authors who make their books available online don't seem to suffer for it.

With that kind of data out there, these industry giants are forgetting the #1 tactic of product placement - give it away free, later a client they will be. That's Biz-101. It's obvious these giants are out of touch with reality.

Only works when people feel the love. I know I feel no compunction about pirating Microsoft products because they have made my life hell and have gotten their pound of flesh back out of me with all the pain and suffering. When it comes to smaller shops, I want to make sure that they make $ and are around to keep producing more great software. I feel a sense of connection.

When there are no practical barriers to piracy, the creators will have to provide a compelling reason for people to want to give them mone

The compensation mentioned wasn't due to the harassment from the prosecutors' side, but rather due to the Swedish legal principle that anyone testifying in court is entitled to compensation for expenses and loss of income.

There is even a web page [yodo.se] in english, where people can report what they give. Near the bottom of the page is a list of articles from around the world about this. There has even been written a tribute song [youtube.com] to him after his testimony, which Wired covered here [wired.com].

And this court case has really helped the Pirate Party of Sweden [piratpartiet.se]. During the last week they have gotten over 1000 new members, which makes them the second-largest opposition party (in member count) in Sweden. Their youth organisation has also grown to become the second-largest political youth organization in Sewden.

This is an academic that is being *asked* to give up his valuable time to help the State in a case. Trying to destroy his reputation is completely unacceptable. To the professor, giving evidence in this trial is just a brief inconvenience whilst he pursues his career. Instead it turns out he was very brave to take on an organisation that acts like the mafia. His wife deserve those flowers, and the Pirate Bay have scored a massive victory in swinging public opinion in their favour.

Valve's Steam has DRM but they've slowly earned the trust they have. I go through computers at quite a high rate, and just with my username and password have managed to have my bought games up and running within minutes on every PC I have ever used, whether on Windows or Linux. I've been running Counterstrike off there for a decade, and never once have I been restricted in how many installs, or what operating system I can install on. The prices are reasonable on there too. Steam is the only instance that sp

Before someone yells "Oh my, you could compare the rise of aids cases to lost sales and your graph would look the same" just shut up ok? Just shut the fuck up because you're another useless slashdot tool spouting the same "I HAVE A RIGHT TO STEAL OTHERS WORK" retoric that I've read on this fucking site for the last 10 years. There is a direct correlation between piracy and lost sales, I've seen it. Grow up.

I'm now beginning to feel suspicious of the possibility that you may have an agenda.

Before someone yells "Oh my, you could compare the rise of aids cases to lost sales and your graph would look the same" just shut up ok? Just shut the fuck up because you're another useless slashdot tool spouting the same "I HAVE A RIGHT TO STEAL OTHERS WORK" retoric that I've read on this fucking site for the last 10 years. There is a direct correlation between piracy and lost sales, I've seen it. Grow up.

I'm now beginning to feel suspicious of the possibility that you may have an agenda.

I've seen 8 American karaoke labels die in the last 10 years, and as of now there's only like 3 or 4 left.

Yes, piracy has a direct impact on overall sales but in the grand scheme of things (the actual music market, not the tiny niche you want to show a link to) it doesn't make much of a dent especially when the majority of people don't pirate.

And just as an aside, we can all hope that when the last 3 or 4 die that the entire industry will fall into a pit, burn, and rot the death it deserves. I'm sorry but I don't see the necessity to foster an environment where drunken idiots sing worse than the mediocrity displayed by the original singer/songwriter while other drunken retards cheer them on. That entire fad is pointless, painful, and horrendous for the rest of us that want to drown our sorrows in fucking peace and quiet./rant.

Why is this a problem? If the people interested in karaoke aren't willing to pay for it, then maybe that niche market doesn't need to exist. If they really wanted the karaoke, they'd pay for it. This is the free market at work.

Selling karaoke CDs to DJs is not the same thing as selling CDs to consumers. It's a different market. Those DJs are using the items whose copyright they infringed to earn a profit, through public performance of the work.

As such, you and those in your industry will have a much easier time tracking down and winning suits against them. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, don't the venues where the "KJs" perform have to have the music public performance stickers on their doors or face big fines? Why don't you hook up with that group and have them spot check not only the stickers but that the music being publicly performed is a licensed copy?

Unfortunately there is evidence that shows that the necline of Napster directly contributed to the decline in CD sales and visa versa when Napster was in it's glory days. CD sales were skyrocketing during the time of Napster so your "data" doesn't even attempt to make a counter claim.

Don't expect people to just shut up when you present your argument in the manner in which you have. Now we have the days of XM and Pandora, last.fm, magnatunes, and a slew of others to provide us with free music or nearly free music so CD sales aren't as compelling as they once were. Now the only time we buy CDs is when an artist puts out something truly worth while. The days of buying one or two discs a week are simply gone.

Now let's look at your graph again and conclude that people have once again lost interest in Karaoke which I can attest to in all the bars I frequent, people that do it are few and far between these days. Instead I'm seeing guitar hero taking up the music at a number of bars in addition to regular DJ work.

Sorry, there is absolutely nothing compelling about your data. Compare the same numbers against gross per-capita spending during those times and look at a similar decline as the economy slid into where it is today.

Shout as much as you want, mate, those stats mean *nothing*. Two lines vaguely in inverse "correlation" for only half the graph (and correlation for the other half, because you "took the sales numbers (like 191.1 mill) and multiplied each of them by 1000 so the line graph would start out somewhat even.", so the actual correlation is between one line and one THOUSANDTH of the other line, which means that the "curve" on sales is barely a blip and perfectly within the error margin of such pathetically collected data) without some sort of context do NOT mean they are linked, in any way, shape or form.

This is why we have professors of mathematics and statistics and why *they* are the ones who are tested in court and found to be reliable and accurate, because they *can* pick out a million faults with your data collection, plotting, analysis, etc. without even having to think about it, prove why you're wrong, and show you the *real* figure. Unfortunately, even most lawyers have no concept of mathematics which is why there are such things as case-law describing how DNA "matches" MUST be worded, tested, analysed and interpreted, because depending on what you measure and how you word the answer you can go from a "one in a billion" match to a "90%" match with the same two sets of DNA data. Look into things like the birthday problem (how many people do you need in a room for there to be a 50% chance of two having the same birthday?) to see how utterly careful you have to be and how atrociously bad humans are at judging probability and statistics.

Your figures (if I *were* to take them as accurate, and replotted them as they should be plotted without arbitrary fiddling) actually show me that there is probably NO correlation at all. I don't know if I believe whether there is a correlation in real life or not, I've not analysed it and I'd be a fool to say I definitely believe either possible outcome in advance, but this man has stood up to a court's test without the opposition managing to debunk his statistics - that holds more than enough water with me.

You imply a negative correlation (higher postings, lower sales). However, looking at your graph, a positive correlation exists in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006... which leaves only a negative correlation in 2003 and 2005. (And both changes from 2002 to 2003 were insignificant, giving you one data point that supports your conclusion).

Furthermore, instead of charting sales in units, you charted sales in dollars. Given that a trivial reading of your source points out the decreasing prices of CDs, and the decrease of new content (11 new CDs in 2007), this seems to make sense. After all, most karaoke is old songs that, once purchased, don't have to be purchased again.

Also, refuting "correlation is not causation" via shouting is pathetic. There are other ways to do so, try one of them.

It sucks, but ya, people steal music on the internet, sales drop for the karaoke labels, we get less karaoke.

Having seen some of the karaoke subs produced by anime fansubbers, I'm willing to bet that fan made karaoke videos will produce higher quality content than any professional label. In the face of ubiquitous video editing software, your industry has simply succumbed to its own irrelevance.

Before someone yells "Oh my, you could compare the rise of aids cases to lost sales and your graph would look the same" just shut up ok? Just shut the fuck up because you're another useless slashdot tool spouting the same "I HAVE A RIGHT TO STEAL OTHERS WORK" retoric that I've read on this fucking site for the last 10 years. There is a direct correlation between piracy and lost sales, I've seen it. Grow up.

No, no. I think you're on to something here. I'm going to plot the rate of "piracy" (heck - even piracy) and the decline of auto sales. Piracy just might be undermining the auto industry as well!

I don't understand how this fellows testimony as to the relationship between album sales and file sharing is relevant. If they broke the law, they broke the law whether or not the record industry lost money. If they didn't break the law, then they did nothing wrong, even if it did cost the record industry money. Does it not work this way in Sweden?

Copyright is an interesting thing. Making a copy isn't actually "theft." The notion of "copyright" is to protect the revenue and value of a work. In fact, in the U.S. one of the limiters of "fair use" is a profit motive and/or a diminished value of the work.

If it can be argued that no harm comes to the value or marketability of a work from mere p2p sharing, then the "spirit" of copyright is not broken, and, in fact, may fall easily into the realm of "fair use" because it is distributed without commercial interest.

So, if two people sharing a work electronically falls under the umbrella of "fair use" in Sweden, then there can be no contribution to a crime by the TPB guys.

The American generic notion of "fair use" does not exist in Swedish copyright law. The current Copyright Act (which dates from 1960, but has been amended several times since) instead lists a number of exceptions to copyright which may or may not apply in certain situations; here are a few of them:

There are plenty of legal ways you can harm someone that should remain legal. If you produce widgets and I invent a process that lets me build widgets much cheaper, I can come in and undercut your business. Then I have harmed you, but I haven't done anything wrong.

Those that just out and out steal (yes it is appropriate, because it means taking something without paying, regardless of the lack of a physical item taken).

It is still inappropriate, because it is not taking. It is copying. Physical item or not (I agree that is immaterial, pun intended) the important difference is whether or not the original owner is left with or without his original.

Stealing is actually legally defined (at least in my country) not as taking, but as "taking away" (precisely, "taking away with the intent to make your own", but that's nitpicking). If you are not "taking away", then it is not stealing in the legal sense.

steal (yes it is appropriate, because it means taking something without paying, regardless of the lack of a physical item taken).

No, it is not appropriate because you are NOT taking something away from someone.

When my old cassette from a movie soundtrack got chewed up by the tape deck and I couldn't buy the CD because it was out of print and there was 0% chance that it would come back in print, finding those songs through "piracy" was not stealing, because they won't take my money even when I drive downtown and try to give it to them.

They are stealing from me by denying me access to the cultural elements that interest me.

And I don't want to buy the crap I keep hearing on the radio every time I walk into a shop, I demand reparation for the mental anguish caused by having their crappy tunes stuck in my head! A thousand US dollar per iteration of that suffering... I figure I'm owed a few millions, to say the least.

Those that just out and out steal (yes it is appropriate, because it means taking something without paying

In copyright infringement nothing is "taken," something is "copied." If you're trying to sell a painting, and I sit down next to it and paint an exact copy and walk away, I have done something that is illegal, but I have not stolen your painting. The same concept applies if I copy your painting through easy technological means, such as taking a very high resolution picture of it.

A requirement for theft is that the victim no longer has the product. And no, you can't argue that I've "stolen the money from the sale" because that's not money you had which you no longer have. When I copy your painting in the example above, I may decide not to buy your painting, but I'm not being charged with theft of your sale, you'd sue me for copyright infringement.

I'm not going to get into the ethics of pirating, because there are obvious philosophical differences at hand and it comes down to your beliefs. However, there's no gray area on the theft thing, no room for discussion. Many things are wrong and many things are illegal, and most of things are not theft. You don't call fraud theft, you can't call copyright infringement theft either.

Actually that's the lamest excuse/rationalization yet.
If you sit down and listen to my music and then play the exact same tune yourself for your own amusement, no you have done nothing wrong.
What a lame attempt.

"Wrongness" is a matter of definition, is not an absolute in most cases, and in any event is not open to your personal interpretation in these matters.

The problem with your argument, and that of everyone else who is attempting to make the "sharing = stealing" argument is this: what you, or I, or anyone else believes is irrelevant. In the United States, and any other country which maintains the rule of law, what does matter is how a given legal system defines a specific activity. Under U.S. law, copyright